Here after poking around the internet I came across rational wiki which echos a lot of the same stuff I have said. Please pick it apart and call out the fallacies, I am interested in hearing the other side and getting to the "truth".

The writers use the term "Apologists" throughout what little I skimmed. That's an Ad Hom Fallacy. There may be some legit stuff in there, but I'm not going to be bothered reading an obviously slanted article.

Yes, in most cases the term apologists is derisive.

Apologists' evidence

The following is a list of common evidence provided by apologists[45] in an attempt to provide historical evidence for Jesus. It is generally evidence for the existence of early Christianity, and none is evidence for Jesus per se. The writers were also born after the Crucifixion and so cannot have been eyewitnesses to Jesus.

This is one of those examples. Someone else will have to help you because you are stuck.

Short version is, people tend to assume that the Bible's Jesus is based on an historical figure because of the quantity of sources, and because, among other elements, the reports of direct speech.

On a purely archaeological base, there has been no proof for the existence of that Jesus-like figure so far, but the core story of the New Testament - the crucifiction - is generally regarded as fairly likely, because exact dates and names are given, and because, frankly, apart from the religious implications, it's simply very likely: In the Ancient Roman empire, the Roman practice of basic religious tolerance created friction especially with the monotheism-oriented people from the Middle East. So, there are historical accounts on executions like that, and there are historical accounts on Messianic sects in Ancient Israel spawning by the dozen. That means, a story like the one told in the New Testament could have happened, in principle.

Now, the core of the debate centers around one specific aspect: Was there a single Proto-Jesus, meaning that the different sources refer to one singular event, or rather, are the many sources reporting sort of the tale of a consensus messiah, meaning the many tales of messiah-like figures essentially got collected in one big one.

Personally, I keep my religious beliefs somewhere between Voltaire and Marx: For Western philosophy, the historical existence would be very convenient, if not much else. And, frankly, while I find myself incapable to believe, I think Christianity is a hell of a lot better than most of the other **** out there.

Well I suppose I should be clearer about the "Records, Letters, what have you" statements
I am not using them as evidence. Its the counter to the implicit
Well no **** their is no evidence cause it happened a long time ago and they didn't have printing presses and servers and databases and stuff.
Yes some information is going to be lost, heck a lot.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

Please tell me this is a Joke?

No, unfortunately not but its one of the few resources I have found that has conveniently put together most of the evidence I have seen in one location.

Originally Posted by It is Fake

The writers use the term "Apologists" throughout what little I skimmed. That's an Ad Hom Fallacy. There may be some legit stuff in there, but I'm not going to be bothered reading an obviously slanted article.

It is slanted, hence why I want it picked a part. It is slanted towards my bias, having that picked apart will be a good starting point.

Short version is, people tend to assume that the Bible's Jesus is based on an historical figure because of the quantity of sources, and because, among other elements, the reports of direct speech.

Including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography.
I take issue with this as a form of evidence.

Originally Posted by Hiro Protagonist

On a purely archaeological base, there has been no proof for the existence of that Jesus-like figure so far, but the core story of the New Testament - the crucifiction - is generally regarded as fairly likely, because exact dates and names are given, and because, frankly, apart from the religious implications, it's simply very likely: In the Ancient Roman empire, the Roman practice of basic religious tolerance created friction especially with the monotheism-oriented people from the Middle East. So, there are historical accounts on executions like that, and there are historical accounts on Messianic sects in Ancient Israel spawning by the dozen. That means, a story like the one told in the New Testament could have happened, in principle.

I am not stating that it couldn't have happened just the lack of contemporary records of it happening

Originally Posted by Hiro Protagonist

Now, the core of the debate centers around one specific aspect: Was there a single Proto-Jesus, meaning that the different sources refer to one singular event, or rather, are the many sources reporting sort of the tale of a consensus messiah, meaning the many tales of messiah-like figures essentially got collected in one big one.

Do you not see how this argument just really muddies the waters. The argument for a historical Jesus is a single Jesus not a compilation of myths. That would be the case for a mythical Jesus.

Upon further delving, I am noticing to me a surprising use of Oral tradition amongst Jews in the Talmud. This may explain the use of an Oral Tradition as opposed to a written one in early Christianity till codified later. It is interesting to me that a highly literate group of people would carry on an Oral Tradition.